The former "is of course effectively the same as the LEAVE" *intends*
in the latter. In my message [from which that first code snippet was
taken], I was replying to the failed intent, not replying to the
potential capability of the LEAVE had the program actually compiled
successfully. After posting, I thought to add that word "intends", to
clarify that point, but I figured it was obvious enough. Apparently not :-(

The first example never breaks out of the loop. <<SNIP>>

That claim ignores the facts that the original code, the latter of
the above compared snippets, is a non-iterative Do-group, and that the
code is expressing a desire\intention rather than reality; i.e. the
LEAVE is not allowed, as coded, effecting a compile error.

To be clear, there was no *loop* to break out of, in the original
code. The Do-group shown was a linear standalone Do-group, not an
iterative Do-group, nor was that standalone Do-group located inside an
iterative Do-group, else the original code would have compiled without
any error. So as I had written, the code snippets are the same, in
effect; whereby the former is functional, and the latter was merely
expressed as a desired non-functional *intended* effect.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2015 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact